corallus

I think that availability of processing is more of a concern for those that don't process at home. That's why, when I came back to film, I decided that if I was going to do it, I'd really take the plunge and process my own film, then scan or wet print it. I've found it to be simpler than I had originally thought. Whether it's B&W or Color, it's doable without much fuss. It just takes some time to find a procedure that works and to practice. It doesn't take too much investment in equipment either. I believe film will be around for a long time still.

I certainly wasn't criticizing digital or screens which I believe I made clear in my post. I still use digital for some things. For me the move back to film made sense given what I know about how I shoot and how I like to use my time in post production. But that's just me. The OP was asking opinions about going with a digital leica or a film leica. I gave my opinion - which is neither right nor wrong for anyone but me. Regards.

I too went down this path, not very long ago. It can be frustrating because there is a lot to learn, but like anything else, the investment in time will pay off if it's something you're really wanting to do. The core of your printing setup will be the enlarger. You can find them anywhere, as you've found. I also wanted to be able to print from color negs. I ended up with a 4x5 size Beseler enlarger with a Beseler / Minolta 45a head. It will do both black and white and color from 35mm all the way up to 4x5.. Many folks who are used to standard heads don't care for them, because they expose paper differently and there's a bit of a learning curve. But after working through the manual over and over again, I've started to get the hang of it. And I've found the flexibility of the head to be astounding. It incorporates an analyzer and manages all of the timing through its controller. You don't need to buy these items separately. Ultimately the digital controller gives you very fine adjustment capability, will do test strips for you and once you've gotten the hang of it, you'll find you can get to a final print pretty quickly. Now the downside is that if it needs repair or new flash bulbs you'll have to search for them. I bought a few extras to have on hand and with the amount of printing I do - I'm pretty confident I'm set for years. But that is something to consider. If you're printing from 35mm you'll probably also want to get the 35mm mixing chamber which concentrates the light from the 4x5 head. You'll also need to get negative holders for your preferred negative sizes. But ultimately with a 4x5 enlarger your set for whatever size you want to print from. For large prints you'll need to be able to swing the head to project against a wall. So keep that in mind as well. Lenses - get the best ones you can afford and have on hand the right focal length lens for the negatives you're printing from. I'd suggest reading Ansel Adams - "The Print" which will go through a lot of this in detail (I'd also recommend books 1 and 2 - "The Camera" and "The Negative") It's a lot of work to learn, but I think it's worth it. I don't wet print everything, but I really enjoy it. Feel free to message me if you want to correspond in more detail on my setup.

For me, shooting film is about the experience. When I made the transition to film from digital I was very obsessive about megapixel comparisons and I used the high res characteristics of film to justify my decision (like I needed justification). But, honestly, now I really don't care about megapixels. As a matter of fact, it's been very freeing to get off the megapixel / upgrade train. I can change the sensor in my camera anytime by changing the film. If I want a bigger enlargement, I pickup my Pentax 67 medium format camera instead of my M3 (though it's not as fun!). I look forward to the development process almost as much as the shooting process. It's a stress relieving experience. I don't know why it feels that way...it just does...for me anyway. I like being able to come home, drop into my cave and spend 20-30 min processing my film. I never thought I would, but I've found that I really enjoy that time. The investment in equipment for developing BW film is pretty minimal. For a basic Paterson SuperSystem 4 tank with two reels, you're talking $30. A changing bag will run you between $10-20. There are many different developer concentrates that will last you a good long time depending on how many rolls you shoot and then they vary from ridiculously cheap to more costly (but not expensive). Stop and fixer are reusable so bottles of concentrate go a long way and are cheap. Film will cost you by the roll, of course. This isn't a knock on the digital process - I still scan and post process my film. I've just really come to enjoy the hands-on process of film shooting and development. And that's got nothing to do with megapixels. Regards.

I got the Leica bug after I'd already moved back in the film direction. Now I shoot with an early double stroke M3 (which I love by the way) and a brand new MP (which I'm starting to enjoy but not as much as the M3 yet). I was always overwhelmed by the volume of shots I'd take when I was using a digital camera. The bigger the memory card, the more shots I'd take. Many of those shots were duplicates for all intents and purposes because I could always just take another one or two in case I wasn't completely steady or something. I'd get home, though, and found myself depressed at the amount of sorting and comparing I would have to do. Kinda took the creative fun out of it for me. Now if you shoot 100 rolls - you could be in the same situation. But that volume would be rare with film shooters. Film forces me to slow down, so I take fewer shots, and with less bracketing and duplication. If I'm going out to shoot, I usually take 2-3 rolls of film with me - usually a combination of Fuji Neopan Acros 100 for daytime stuff and Ilford HP5+ 400 for low light and pushing. When I shoot color it's Ektar. When I come home, I slip into the studio, load those 2-3 rolls onto reels in a dark bag and process the film. From start to finish it's usually 20-30 minutes of processing work in a Paterson tank or in a Jobo CPP3 and my negatives are done and drying. Not long after that I'm scanning in the negatives and I've got anywhere from 50-75 shots to evaluate. For those I want to keep / share / print I'll do some post processing in photoshop - mostly just some spotting, a contrast adjustment and a tad bit of sharpening. Realistically - I'm usually post processing between 15-20 shots. So for me anyway (I recognize this may be different for others)....I find that even with the film development step I'm saving time compared to what I used to do with digital. If I were to feel the need to go the other direction to digital, I'd need to find a way to force myself to slow down and limit the number of shots I took. If i were to go digital leica - I'd probably do the MD with a smallish memory card. But that's just me. Regards.

I think you'll find that scanning in your own negatives will yield a much more satisfying result. Once you get familiar with your software of choice and have developed some preset scanning settings as a starting place, it's really quite simple. Now my assumption is that you're wanting to bring the scan into lightroom or photoshop for digital processing. If not, you should be fine with a scanning service. The problem I've had with professional scanning services is that I'm not really sure what they're doing. Are they giving me a straight flat scan of my neg? Are they applying sharpening or other enhancements? If I'm just shooting snapshots, that might be just fine. But when I'm in a creative mode, I want that control for myself. It really just depends on what you want to do with the output. FWIW.....I use an Epson V750 Pro and use EpsonScan or Vuescan and am very happy with what it yields. Regards.